Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Ramakant Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 3 September, 2013

R.S.Chauhan vs Raviprakash on 24 November, 2015

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another Vs. Rajiv Dubey, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 603, State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and the decision of this Court in the case of Ravikant Dubey and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2014 (2) M.P.H.T. 449.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pravendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2015

**Qfj;kfn;k fiz;adk 'kekZ iRuh izosUnz 'kekZ fuoklh 'kkL=h uxj ch Cykd fHk.M us ,d ys[kh; vkosnu ngst izrkM+uk ds laca/k esa is'k fd;k ftldk fooj.k fuEu gS& Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; Fkkuk nsgkr ftyk fHk.M fo"k; ifr o lkl] llqj] nsoj] ftBkuh }kjk ngst gsrq izrkfM+r djus ckcnA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa fiz;adk 'kekZ ,e,] Mh,M rd f'k{kk xzgj.k dh gS esjh 'kknh 05-05-11 dks izosUnz 'kekZ iq= ';ke fcgkjh 'kekZ fuoklh 'kkL=h uxj ch Cykd ds lkFk fgUnw fjfr fjokt ls gqbZ Fkh esjs firk us lkeF;Z ds vuqlkj lkeku Vhoh] Qzh] ckflax e'khu] Mcy cSM] vyekjh] crZu] diM+k] lksus dh psu] ckyk] >qedh] vWaxwBh] psu fn;s Fks ,oa x`gLFkh pkyus ds fy;s yxqu eas 2]50]000 :i;s fn;s A esjk ifr f'k{kkfoHkkx esa lgk;d f'k{kd gS 'kknh ds 6 ekg ckn llqj ';kefcgkjh] lkl ljyk nsoh] ifr izosUnz] ftBkuh jk[kh] nscj uh:] iou ngst esa 2]00]000 :i;s uxn ,oa eksVj lk;fdy dh ekax dj eq>s 'kkjhj ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djus yxs llqjky ls vkus ds ckn eSaus esjs lkFk gqbZ ?kVuk viuh eEeh ljkst nsoh] firk f'konRr] HkkbZ jfo dks crkbZ mlds ckn esjs ek;ds okyks us lekt ds izfrf"Br O;fDr;ksa dh iapk;r cqykbZ ftlesa jkenqykjs 'kekZ cdhy] larks"k Fkkid] eqUuk 'kekZ] gjsUnz 'kekZ vkfn Fks iapk;r djkus ds ckn llqjky okys lHkh yksxks us ;g dkg fd vc ngst ugh ekaxsxs ,oa ijs'kku ugh djsaxs A rc esjs ifr eq>s llqjky ys x;s tgkWa Qjojh 2013 ls vxLr 2013 rd yxkrkj llqjky esa jgh dqN fnu ckn blh chp esa eq>s llqjkyhtu rjg&rjg ls ijs'kku djus yxs ckr&ckr ij ekjihV djrs fnu esa ,d ckj Hkkstu nsrs esjs ekrk firk HkkbZ ls ckr ugh djus nsrs vkSj esjs ifjtu fj'rsnkjks dks ?kj ugh vkus nsrs eq>ls feyus ugh nsrs Fks vxLr 2013 esjh lkl] llqj] ftBkuh] ifr o nscjks us feydj ekjihV dh blds mijkUr eSaus ekSdk ns[kdj lkl ds j[kus Qksu ls HkS;k jfo dks ekjihV izrk+M+uk dh ?kVuk crkbZ HkkbZ eq>s ns[kus vk;k rks mlds lkFk Hkh cnlywdh dh vkSj eq>s /kDdk nsdj mlds lkFk Hkst fn;k A rHkh ls yxkrkj eSa firk ds ?kj ij jg jgh gWwa bl chp eSa esjs ifjtuksa esa yxkrkj esjs llqjky i{k dks eq>s ys tkus ds fy;s cksyk llqjky i{k okys lHkh ykx fcuk 2]00]000 :i;s uxn ,oa eksVj lk;fdy ngst ds fcuk ys tkus ds fy;s fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa rS;kj ugh Fks eq>s yxkrkj esjs firk ds ?kj Hkh ekufld] 'kjhj :i ls yxkrkj izrkfM+r djrs jgsA blds fy;s esjh lkl ljyk nsoh] llqj] ';kefcgkjh] ifr izosUnz 'kekZ] ftBkuh jk[kh] nscj uh: ,oa iou nks"kh gS lks vkosnu djrh gWwa mfpr dk;Zokgh dh tkosA** 3- Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that in the FIR omnibus allegations have been made against the present petitioners and as vague statements have been made against the accused persons, the FIR itself deserves to be quashed in light of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ravikant Dubey and Ors. Vs. State of M. P. & Ors. reported in 2014(2) JLJ 25. He has also argued that the husband has filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on 23/06/2014 and thereafter, the wife has lodged the FIR. 4- This Court has carefully gone through the FIR and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Paragraph No.15 to 20 of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, reads as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ravikant Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2016

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is 2 Ravikant Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No. 2540/2016 directed that the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties of the like amount in case of each of the applicants to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Pravendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioners pray that criminal proceeding which is in progress may kindly be stayed. The petitioners further claim that the petitioner No.1 has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which has been registered as case no.126/2014 (HMA) pending before the Family Court, Bhind. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR bearing crime no.267/2014 which is maliciously instituted with an ulterior MCRC.No.1845/2015 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused/petitioners and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2014 pronounced in Ravikant Dubey and others Vs. State of M.P. and another decided as M.Cr.C.No.5944/2012.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1